DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**foltdan** · 10-02-2008, 05:01 PM

When asked what he was doing, the man told the officer, “Allah told me to watch a Bruce Willis movie and walk the dog,” McCranie said.

Did he hurt anyone?

Was he ranting, swinging thnigs around? I am confused, if you came to NYC and tasered everyone that talked to themselves while walking down the street, well, you would have your hands full!!!

Hell, even tasering those that make no SENSE while walking down the street, you would still run out of juice pretty darned fast!

“He was obviously having some sort of emotional distress,” he said. “It was unfortunate we had to use the Taser. … It was the only way we could subdue him without having to hurt him.” I have not read the full article, but why did he need to be subdued?

The man was then sent for mental-health evaluation and treatment.

HMMMMMMMM... MAYBE HIMSELF Ah, so in order to save someone who is aimlessly wandering around the streets talking about Bruce Willis, we have to shock him and throw him in the looney bin?

Also, small point, you seem to have gotten your response a little skewed. I assume "to himself" was in answer to Zip's question "And he was a dange to whom?"

this maybe the sillyist thing I have read on this forum...period no wait no I am right Um, you are getting defensive. Zip is asking a pointed question to get you to see the direction he is pointing.

It does not matter if you see him down the street pointing down the block he is standing at if you do not come over to him and look at what he is pointing to.

Right now you are looking ni the direction he is pointing and all you see is Duane Reede. You know?

The key point here is that cops are starting to lose appreciation for what the Taser actually is. A potentially lethal method for subduing a suspect/threat.

Is it better than a gun? Yep. Better than a nightstick? In some situations, yess. Should it be used at the drop of a hat when the police feel it easier to shock a guy than to talk him down? No.

Cops are starting to lose respect for this weapon. They have to be reminded, just like any other human, what using that device really stands for.

Absolute enforcement. This thing really is not a "humanitarian aid". It is just a gun that is less likely to kill someone. (slight exaggeration for illustration? Yes, but until they start seing it as such, you will see abuses of it regularly).

10-02-2008, 05:01 PM	#45
foltdan Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 414 Senior Member	When asked what he was doing, the man told the officer, “Allah told me to watch a Bruce Willis movie and walk the dog,” McCranie said. Did he hurt anyone? Was he ranting, swinging thnigs around? I am confused, if you came to NYC and tasered everyone that talked to themselves while walking down the street, well, you would have your hands full!!! Hell, even tasering those that make no SENSE while walking down the street, you would still run out of juice pretty darned fast! “He was obviously having some sort of emotional distress,” he said. “It was unfortunate we had to use the Taser. … It was the only way we could subdue him without having to hurt him.” I have not read the full article, but why did he need to be subdued? The man was then sent for mental-health evaluation and treatment. HMMMMMMMM... MAYBE HIMSELF Ah, so in order to save someone who is aimlessly wandering around the streets talking about Bruce Willis, we have to shock him and throw him in the looney bin? Also, small point, you seem to have gotten your response a little skewed. I assume "to himself" was in answer to Zip's question "And he was a dange to whom?" this maybe the sillyist thing I have read on this forum...period no wait no I am right Um, you are getting defensive. Zip is asking a pointed question to get you to see the direction he is pointing. It does not matter if you see him down the street pointing down the block he is standing at if you do not come over to him and look at what he is pointing to. Right now you are looking ni the direction he is pointing and all you see is Duane Reede. You know? The key point here is that cops are starting to lose appreciation for what the Taser actually is. A potentially lethal method for subduing a suspect/threat. Is it better than a gun? Yep. Better than a nightstick? In some situations, yess. Should it be used at the drop of a hat when the police feel it easier to shock a guy than to talk him down? No. Cops are starting to lose respect for this weapon. They have to be reminded, just like any other human, what using that device really stands for. Absolute enforcement. This thing really is not a "humanitarian aid". It is just a gun that is less likely to kill someone. (slight exaggeration for illustration? Yes, but until they start seing it as such, you will see abuses of it regularly).
	Quote